Class Notes - Days 25 & 26

#

These notes cover the classes conducted on Saturday, October 26th, 2024 and Monday, October 28th, 2024 for LLB 3Y students at Padala Rama Reddi Law College. The subjects included Contracts - 1, Law of Torts, Environmental Law, Constitutional Law - 1, and Family Law - 1.

Notes for Day 24 can be found here

---

Contracts - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Radha Kumari

Revocation and Communication of Acceptance

#

• Simultaneous Arrival of Acceptance and Revocation:
  • When the communication of both acceptance and revocation of acceptance reach the offeror at the same time, the revocation will take precedence and take effect. This rule ensures that the offeror has clarity on the standing of the contract and avoids binding the offeror against their consent.

Revocation of Acceptance Under English Law

#

• Binding Nature of Posted Acceptance:

  • Under English law, once an acceptance letter has been posted, the contract is considered complete, binding both parties. There is no option for revocation of acceptance once posted, as the acceptance is deemed communicated the moment it is out of the offeree’s control.

• Case Reference: Adams v. Lindsell (1818):

  • In this case, a delay in communication led to a dispute over a contract. The court held that a contract was formed at the moment the acceptance was posted by the offeree, establishing that postal acceptance binds both parties upon dispatch, not upon receipt.

• Analogy by Sir William Anson:

  • “Acceptance to an offer is what a lighted matchstick is to a train of gunpowder.” – Sir William Anson

  • This analogy by Anson underscores the irreversible nature of acceptance in contract law. Just as an ignited matchstick immediately sets off a chain reaction in gunpowder, acceptance sets a contract into immediate effect upon communication. The moment acceptance is communicated (especially once it is dispatched, as with postal rules), the offer is irrevocably binding. This leaves no room for either party to retract or revoke their consent, solidifying the contract and obligating both parties to fulfill the agreed terms.

Contracts 1

#

Faculty: Dr Radha Kumari

Consideration in Contracts

#

• Definition: Under Sections 2(d), 23, and 25 of the Indian Contract Act, consideration is essential to make a contract enforceable. Without consideration, an agreement is a nudem pactum or “bare contract” and is therefore void. Consideration refers to “something in return” (quid pro quo) given by both parties in a contract.

• Pollock’s View on Consideration: According to Pollock, consideration is the price for which the promise of the other party is bought. Thus, a promise given for value is enforceable. For example, if A agrees to sell his car to B for ₹10,000, A’s car serves as consideration for B, and the price (₹10,000) is the consideration for A.

• Definition by Justice Lush J: He defines consideration as “a valuable consideration in the sense of the law may consist either in some right, interest, profit, or benefit accruing to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.”

• Definition by Justice Patterson: Justice Patterson defines it as “something which is of some value in the eye of law—it may be some benefit to the plaintiff or some detriment to the defendant.”

Salient Features of Consideration

#

1. Must Be Lawful: Consideration in a contract should be lawful and permissible under the law.

2. Need Not Be Adequate: While consideration should be of value, it does not need to be equal to the promise given; however, something of value must be exchanged.

3. Forms of Consideration (Sec 2(d)):

   • act: Performing an action as consideration.
     • Example: In a contract of guarantee, a surety’s promise to discharge the debt of a principal debtor is supported by the creditor’s act of lending money based on that promise.
   • Forbearance/Abstinence: Not doing something or refraining from a particular act.
     • Example: A promises B not to file a suit against him if B pays ₹500. A’s forbearance from suing is consideration for B’s payment.
   • Return Promise: A promise given in return for another promise.

4. Characteristics of Consideration:

   • May provide an advantage or benefit to one party or a detriment or loss to the other.
   • Unlawful, immoral, or against public policy considerations (e.g., agreements related to illegal activities or prostitution) are void.
   • Agreements without consideration are termed as bare agreements and are unenforceable in court.

Important Case Laws

#

• Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali: The court held that an agreement lacking consideration is unenforceable and could not be recovered.
• Kedarnath v. Gauri Mohammed: Although there was no express consideration, the plaintiff demonstrated that he spent money based on the defendant’s promise. The court allowed the plaintiff to recover expenses incurred based on the promise, establishing reliance on implied consideration.

---

Family Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. Sriveni

Section 11 & 12 | Void and Voidable Marriage | Nullity of Marriage

#

Absolute Impediments (Void ab initio) - Section 11

#

• Absolute Impediments mean the marriage is considered void from the outset if it violates certain conditions. Under Section 5(i), (iv), and (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), marriages are void due to:
  • Bigamy: Marriage to more than one person at the same time.
  • Prohibited Degrees: Marriage within specific familial relationships.
  • Sapinda Relationship: Marriage within certain degrees of close kinship.

Relevant Case Laws

#

• Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla v. Manjeet Singh Chawla: The court ruled the marriage void due to bigamy, as the husband was already married.
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse: Here, the husband concealed his first marriage from the second wife. The court held the marriage void however, it awarded maintenance to the second wife.
• Prabhjot Singh v. Prabhjit Kaur: Marriage was void as it was within the sapinda relationship. Additionally, the husband contended that Hindu Law did not apply to him, which he failed to prove. The court declared the marriage void ab initio.

---

Relative Impediments (Voidable) - Section 12

#

• A voidable marriage is considered legally valid unless it is annulled by a court. This section has roots in English law and has some inconsistencies, such as children becoming illegitimate if a marriage is voided.
• Grounds for Voidable Marriage:
  1. Impotence
  2. Insanity, Mental Disorder, or Epilepsy (if existing before marriage)
  3. Force or Fraud
  4. Pregnancy by Another Person at the Time of Marriage

---

Grounds for Voidable Marriages

#

1. Impotence

#

• Shawanti v. Bhawrao: The wife could not menstruate but was able to have sexual relations. Court ruled this was not grounds for annulment.
• Samar Som v. Sadhana Som & Beena Cherian v. K.S. Varghese: In both cases, the wives had no uterus due to medical procedures. Since a normal sexual relationship was possible, the marriages were not annulled.
• Jagannath Mudali v. Nirupam Behra: Wife was unable to consummate the marriage. The court annulled the marriage.
• Jagdish Lal v. Shyama Madan: Husband could engage in sexual relations with others but not with his wife. The court considered this as impotence towards the wife and annulled the marriage.
• Smt Suvarna v. G.M. Acharya & Manjit Kaur v. Surrender: In both cases, the husband was unable to perform sexually, leading the court to annul the marriage.

2. Insanity | Mental Disorder | Epilepsy - Section 12(i)(b)

#

• If mental disorder is evident before marriage, it can render the marriage voidable. Unsoundness of mind after marriage is a ground for divorce, not annulment.
• Muneshwar Dutt v. Smt Indra Kumari: The court held that if insanity develops post-marriage, it is grounds for divorce but not annulment.
• Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta: Court held that mental illness at a severe level making cohabitation difficult is grounds for annulment.
• Kollam Chandra Sekhar v. Kollam Padmalatha: Wife was being treated for schizophrenia. The court held this valid for annulment.
• R. Lakshmi Narayan v. Santhi: Husband petitioned for annulment after living with the wife for 25 days, citing her mental disorder. The court dismissed his petition, as he had prior opportunities to discover her condition.

Note: Since 2019, Epilepsy is no longer a reason as it is now curable.

3. Force or Fraud

#

• Annulment can be sought if consent was obtained by force or fraud. A petition must be filed within one year of marriage.
  • Ford v. Stier: Groom misrepresented a marriage ceremony as a betrothal ceremony. The wife filed for annulment on these grounds.
  • Bimla v. Shankarlal: Concealment of religion or caste was found to be fraudulent; the marriage was annulled.
  • Harbhajan v. Brijbala: Father-in-law falsely assured the groom that the bride was a virgin; the court annulled the marriage.
  • Som Dutt v. Raj Kumar: Wife was seven years older than stated, which was grounds for fraud.
  • Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand: Misrepresentation of financial status and property led the court to annul the marriage.
  • Bawi v. Ram: Bride’s parents concealed groom’s actual age of 60, which was fraud, and the marriage was annulled.
  • Kaur v. Singh: Similar circumstances of misrepresentation led to annulment.

4. Wife Pregnant with Another’s Child

#

• Grounds for annulment include:
  • Ignorance of the fact by the husband
  • Petition filed within one year of marriage
  • Cessation of the marital relationship upon discovery
• Case Laws:
  • Mahendra v. Shushila: Wife gave birth to a child after only 171 days of marriage, indicating a pre-marriage pregnancy. The marriage was annulled.
  • Baldeo Miglani v. Smt Urmila Kumari: Marriage took place on July 8, and the child was born on December 6 of the same year (157 days later). The marriage was annulled.
  • Ravena Siddappa v. Mallikarjun & Other: The illegitimate child of the spouse was ruled only entitled to self-acquired property, not ancestral property.
  • Bharatha Matha v. Vijaya Ranganathan: Confirmed that illegitimate children can claim only the father’s separate property.

---

Law of Torts

#

Faculty: Dr. Pavani

Mental Elements of Tortious Liability

#

1. Fault

#

• Definition: Fault refers to the state of mind of a person in committing a wrongful act. Liability in tort often depends on whether the wrongful act was done intentionally or maliciously.
• Standard of a Reasonable Man: Fault is assessed by comparing the defendant’s conduct to that of a reasonable person. If the defendant’s actions fall below this standard, he may be liable for negligence. Liability in tort arises when a person fails to exercise the necessary duty of care expected in a given situation.
• Excused Liability: Sometimes, the defendant’s conduct may be excused if the wrongful act is due to an inevitable accident.
  • Case Law: National Coal Board v. J. Evans & Co. – Established parameters for liability when accidents occur under foreseeable but unavoidable circumstances.
  • Case Law: Holmes v. Mather – Discusses the reasonable foreseeability and duty of care expected in avoiding harm.

2. No Fault Liability

#

• Definition: Certain torts do not require proof of fault, intention, or negligence, and liability arises simply because harm occurred. This is common in vicarious liability, where one party is liable for the acts of another.
• Strict Liability & Absolute Liability: Under strict liability, a person is liable for damage caused by their actions even if there was no negligence or wrongful intent. Absolute liability goes further, with no defense possible.
  • Example: Vicarious liability in relationships like employer-employee or principal-agent.
  • Case Law: Consolidated Company v. Curtis (1892) – In a case of wrongful conversion, an auctioneer was held liable for selling goods without proper ownership verification, even though it was an honest mistake.

3. Malice

#

• Definition: Malice refers to the intent to harm another person or act with a wrongful motive. In tort law, malice is analyzed in two forms:

  • Malice-in-Fact: The actual intent to cause harm, also called express malice. An act with ill will or evil intent towards an individual.

    • Case Law: Bradford Corporation v. Pickles – Established that a lawful act does not become wrongful just because of a bad motive.
    • Case Law: Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal – Reinforced that a legitimate act done with malice cannot constitute a tort simply because of bad intent.

  • Malice-in-Law: Refers to an act done intentionally without just cause, regardless of personal ill will.

    • Case Law: Allen v. Flood – Defined malice-in-law as the intentional performance of a wrongful act without just cause.

4. Wrongful Intention

#

• Definition: Wrongful intention involves the desire to bring about a specific consequence, typically resulting in harm. Intent is often inferred based on the conduct and foreseeability of consequences.
• Elements of Wrongful Intention:
  1. Desire to cause harm.
  2. Knowledge of likely injurious consequences of one’s actions.

5. Negligence

#

• Definition: Negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances. It can be both subjective and objective.
• Three-Part Test for Negligence:
  1. Actual Consequence: Based on the consequences of the act and its relationship to the plaintiff.
  2. Standard of Care: Comparison to the conduct of a reasonable person.
  3. Foreseeability: Evaluation of the consequences that a reasonable person would have foreseen.

Capacity of Parties | Parties to the Proceedings

#

1. Who Cannot Sue

#

1. Convicts

   • English Law: The Forfeiture Act of 1870 restricted convicts from suing for injury or debt recovery, though the Criminal Justice Act 1948 removed this restriction.
   • Indian Law: Certain severe offenses previously led to forfeiture of property, but forfeiture has mostly been abolished, except under specific IPC sections (121, 126, 127, and 169). Convicts retain the right to sue for personal injury but are limited if their property has been forfeited.

2. Alien Enemy

   • Definition: An alien enemy is someone from or residing in enemy territory.
   • English Law: Alien enemies cannot sue unless licensed or permitted.
   • Indian Law: Alien enemies may sue in India with the permission of the central government (Sec 83, CPC).

3. Married Women

   • English Law: Historically, married women needed their husbands to join lawsuits as plaintiffs or defendants. Changes by the Married Woman Property Act 1882, Married Women and Tortfeasors Act 1935, and Husband and Wife Act 1962 allowed spouses to sue independently.
     • Case Law: Smith v. Moss – Related to limitations in rights to sue for married women in early English law.
   • Indian Law: Governed by respective personal laws, allowing married women the right to sue independently.

4. Corporation

• Legal Entity and Vicarious Liability:

  • A corporation, also known as a legal person, is an entity distinct from its members. It acts through its agents, employees, or officers, leading to vicarious liability for actions committed by these representatives within the scope of their employment or authority. This means that if an employee or agent commits a tort (like defamation or negligence) while performing their duties for the corporation, the corporation itself can be held legally responsible.
  • Corporations can sue and be sued for torts like libel or defamation if the claim aligns with their legal powers. This is known as acting intra vires (within legal powers).

• Ultra Vires Acts:

  • The term ultra vires means “beyond the powers.” Corporations are established under specific legal charters or statutes that define their powers and scope of activities. In India, these powers are outlined in the Memorandum of Association (MoA) and Articles of Association (AoA), which are the foundational documents for a company. An ultra vires act is any action or decision made outside of the corporation’s legally defined powers. In such cases, the corporation is generally not held liable, as the act is considered void and beyond the legal authority of the corporation.
  • Case Law Example: Boulton v. L&SW Railways Co. – This case highlighted that if a corporation engages in actions beyond its statutory powers (ultra vires), it cannot be held liable for those acts. The case examines the limits of corporate liability and reinforces that corporations can only act within their legally defined scope. Acts outside this scope are considered unauthorized, and liability does not attach to the corporation.

5. Infants: To be discussed

6. Insolvents: To be discussed

7. Foreign State: To be discussed

2. Who Cannot Be Sued

#

Some categories of individuals or entities are granted immunity under specific legal doctrines or statutory protections, limiting their liability in tort. To be discussed in the next class.

---

Constitutional Law - 1

#

Faculty: Dr. M. Gangadhar Rao

---

Article 13 - Judicial Review and the Definition of Law

#

Background and Origin of Judicial Review

• The concept of Judicial Review was introduced by Chief Justice John Marshall in the landmark U.S. case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The case arose when President John Adams, in the final days of his presidency, appointed several officials but failed to deliver all the appointment orders before his term ended. Secretary of State James Madison, under President Jefferson, did not deliver some of these appointments.
• The court ruled that while the appointees had a right to their commissions, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could not issue a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of these appointments. Marshall used this opportunity to establish the principle of Judicial Review, where courts could declare laws unconstitutional.
• In India, Judicial Review is explicitly outlined in Article 13 of the Constitution.

Key Clauses of Article 13

#

1. Pre-Constitutional Law: Any law existing before the enactment of the Constitution is considered void if it contradicts the provisions of the Constitution of India, particularly the Fundamental Rights.

2. Post-Constitutional Law: Any new law enacted after the Constitution came into force will be void if it infringes upon any of the Fundamental Rights.

3. Definition of Law and Law in Force:

   • Article 13 defines “law” to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and customs or usages.
   • “Law in force” includes laws existing before the commencement of the Constitution, which continues to be in effect as long as they are not inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.

4. Amendments Excluded from Judicial Review:

   • The 42nd Amendment (1977) to the Constitution, introduced by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, added a provision that amendments made to the Constitution are not considered “law” under Article 13.
   • This amendment aimed to remove amendments from the purview of judicial review, effectively reducing the power of courts to strike down constitutional amendments.
   • This provision was eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980).

Important Case Laws

#

• A.K. Gopalan Case (1950):

  • This case established the Doctrine of Severability, which allows courts to sever and remove only the unconstitutional parts of a statute, while leaving the remaining portions intact if they are separable and do not violate Fundamental Rights.

• F.M. Balsara Case (1951):

  • The case further affirmed the Doctrine of Severability, reinforcing that unconstitutional provisions within a statute could be removed without invalidating the entire law.

---

Environmental Law - Notes

#

Faculty: Dr. Vijaya Kalyani

Public Nuisance

#

Public nuisance is defined as an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. According to Stephen, “Anything done to hurt…”

Rylands v. Fletcher

#

In Rylands v. Fletcher, a reservoir was created on a person’s property, but it leaked and flooded into the land of a neighboring property owner. The case established the principle of strict liability, meaning that a person who brings something dangerous onto their land may be held liable if it escapes and causes damage, even if they were not negligent.

Municipal Council Ratlam v. Vardhichand

#

Background

#

This landmark case from 1980 addressed environmental issues and established the obligations of statutory bodies using the public nuisance doctrine in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). It was heard by the Supreme Court of India and decided by Justices O. Chinnappa Reddy and V.R. Krishna Iyer.

Facts of the Case

#

• Residents of Ratlam city in Madhya Pradesh faced issues due to pungent smells from open drains.
• Overflow of waste from distilleries created potential health hazards.
• Incidents of open defecation were reported due to lack of toilets and presence of slums.
• Residents approached the executive magistrate to address the problem.
• The magistrate ordered the municipality to create a plan to remove the drains and construct proper ones, along with latrines, within 6 months.
• The municipality claimed inability to comply due to lack of funds.

Key Issues

#

1. Whether the municipality’s financial inability exonerated it from statutory liability.
2. The application of public nuisance laws in environmental cases.

Judgment

#

The court ruled that:

1. Statutory Obligation: The municipality cannot avoid its responsibility due to lack of funds.
2. Public Nuisance: The court applied Sections 133-143 of the CrPC, which deal with public nuisance.
3. Human Rights: The court construed the right to a clean environment as a human right.
4. Mandatory Compliance: Orders under Section 133 of CrPC are obligatory and mandatory for the municipality.
5. Financial Plea Rejected: The plea of financial inability was deemed unjustified in cases of public nuisance.

Key Statements by the Court

#

• “Decency and dignity are non-negotiable facets of human rights and are a first charge on local self-governing bodies.”
• The court criticized the municipality for having funds to fight the case but not to solve public problems.

Significance

#

1. Established accountability for both public and private bodies in environmental matters.
2. Widened the scope of Section 133 of the CrPC in addressing environmental issues.
3. Recognized the right to a clean environment as part of human rights.
4. Set a precedent for future environmental cases in India.

Aftermath

#

This case influenced subsequent environmental legislation in India, including:

• The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
• The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
• The Environment Protection Act, 1986

The Ratlam case remains a significant milestone in Indian environmental jurisprudence, emphasizing the responsibility of local bodies in maintaining public health and environmental standards.

Exceptions to Strict Liability

#

1. Statutory Authority - If an act is authorized by statute, the person may not be liable.
2. Plaintiff’s Own Fault - If the damage results from the plaintiff’s own actions.
3. Act of God - Natural events that are unforeseeable and uncontrollable.
4. Act of a Stranger - If the act was caused by someone who is a third party, without any control by the defendant.
5. Mutual Benefit - When both parties benefit from the act that caused the damage.

Absolute Liability

#

• Oleum Gas Leak Case - This case introduced the concept of absolute liability, which is a stricter form of strict liability. Unlike strict liability, absolute liability has no exceptions. If a hazardous activity causes harm, the entity conducting it is fully liable, regardless of precautions taken.

Important Questions on Environmental Law

#

1. What are the provisions in the CPC related to environmental pollution?

   • This is highlighted as an important question, addressing specific procedural laws that handle environmental pollution cases.

2. Right to Pollution-Free Environment

   • Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, individuals have the right to a pollution-free environment, as it is considered essential to the right to life.

Common Law Remedies for Environmental Pollution

#

• Question: What are the common law remedies available for environmental pollution?
  • This is an essential topic, exploring how traditional common law principles such as nuisance, negligence, trespass, and abatement can be applied to address environmental harms.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

#

• Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a critical tool used in environmental law. It allows individuals or groups to file petitions to safeguard environmental interests and hold entities accountable for environmental damage, even if they are not directly affected.

---